I've been trying to research circing but my laptop is broke so I'm trying to do my research by phone.😁Ikeep reading how its "just cleaner" to have a circ'ed penis. Why is it cleaner? Obviously you'll have to clean it either way. That seems to be the most common argument for pro circ'ing.
I tried looking for videos to compare cleaning the penis but all I can find are videos of the actual circ'ing itself.
I'm having my first boy NEXT WEEK and feel like an idiot bc I still feel so uninformed about circ'ing. (It seemsich easier to find the pros of leaving a boy intact but I want more info on the benefits of circ'ing.)

there arent any proven benefits. There are people who say its cleaner, but no evidence behind that (in fact a group went to Africa to do circ saying it would reduce aids and it actually increased in rate among the circed men). There are many risks with circing that are not risks if you leave a boy intact (botched circ, infection, etc).

If you arent sure you want to, why bother? It can always be done later, it cant be undone.

And if you are a Christian (I assume you are by your siggy) read what the new testament has to say about it, I would avoid it based on that alone! Check out Galatians 5.

For the record I have 3 sons who are not circed, never had any cleanliness issues with any of them.

We are definitely leaning towards keeping him in tact but I just feel like everything I've read has been very 1 sided, with not much info on the positive effects of circ'ing. We told our families that we are planning on keeping him in tact and you would've thought I had 5 heads. LOL we will have basically no support from our families bc they think I'm just being "weird" which is why Iwant to be very well informed so I will not back down in my decision. Thank you very much for your input.

There are no real benefits to circ'ing. the cleanliness thing is a myth. a man who doesn't bathe properly is going to be dirty regardless of the status of his penis.

as far as cleaning an intact baby, you wipe it like a finger, no retraction ever. The foreskin is fused to the glans during infancy, retraction is painful and can cause infections.

Sorry if this is TMI, but my DH is intact. He has never had an infection and he isn't dirty or smelly. during bathing, he just retracts his foreskin and cleans and any other man would. the time difference for an adult male is literally a split second.

We got the same reaction from my Mom when I told her we wouldn't be circing. But I knew it was the right choice for us. In the beginning the foreskin completely covers the penis even when it is erect (which happens a lot even for a baby) so you clean the outside like a finger. Like the pp said, once the child is older and the foreskin retracts it needs to be retracted and cleaned when bathing. Just remember that most if the world doesn't do routine circumcising and life goes on for them. For me I felt like if my girls didn't need surgery right after birth then why would I do it to my son?

The benefits are reduced risk of penile cancer and a slightly lower risk of contracting HIV. However, penile cancer is already very rare (breast cancer is significantly more common) and survivable. As for HIV, the benefits are virtually irrelevant in the western world, where it is transmitted most commonly via unprotected male-male sexual contact and contaminated drug needles. Circumcision doesn't protect against male-male transmission at all, and obviously doesn't protect against dirty needles. In terms of heterosexual sex, it's more difficult for men to contract it from women than the other way around, and the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised risk is pretty small.

Not to mention, having unprotected sex regardless of foreskin status is dumb dumb dumb! I'm unsure if there have been studies done comparing the risk of contracting HIV when using condoms in both circumcised and intact men, but I cannot imagine there would be a discernible difference.

The benefits are reduced risk of penile cancer and a slightly lower risk of contracting HIV. However, penile cancer is already very rare (breast cancer is significantly more common) and survivable. As for HIV, the benefits are virtually irrelevant in the western world, where it is transmitted most commonly via unprotected male-male sexual contact and contaminated drug needles. Circumcision doesn't protect against male-male transmission at all, and obviously doesn't protect against dirty needles. In terms of heterosexual sex, it's more difficult for men to contract it from women than the other way around, and the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised risk is pretty small.

Not to mention, having unprotected sex regardless of foreskin status is dumb dumb dumb! I'm unsure if there have been studies done comparing the risk of contracting HIV when using condoms in both circumcised and intact men, but I cannot imagine there would be a discernible difference.

There are a lot of issues with the African studies. The biggest being that the study was ended before the circumcised men were allowed to have intercourse again, meanwhile the uncircumcised men were free to behave as they pleased. The second issue is that the "60% decrease" that so many people cite is the relative decrease, not absolute decrease. The absolute decrease was only 1.31%. and finally, the man who conducted the studies is David R. Tomlinson, inventor of the AccuCirc device. In regards to HIV, we have one of the highest circ rates in the developed world and one of the highest HIV rates. Most, if not all, western European countries have a significantly lower circ rate as well as a much lower rate of HIV. and as you mentioned, African studies aren't very applicable to us.

You're right about penile cancer, it's ridiculously rare, a male is more likely to get breast cancer. There have also been studies associating circumcision with penile cancer on the scar line, but the risk was also ridiculously low and not really concerning.

The benefits are reduced risk of penile cancer and a slightly lower risk of contracting HIV. However, penile cancer is already very rare (breast cancer is significantly more common) and survivable. As for HIV, the benefits are virtually irrelevant in the western world, where it is transmitted most commonly via unprotected male-male sexual contact and contaminated drug needles. Circumcision doesn't protect against male-male transmission at all, and obviously doesn't protect against dirty needles. In terms of heterosexual sex, it's more difficult for men to contract it from women than the other way around, and the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised risk is pretty small.

Not to mention, having unprotected sex regardless of foreskin status is dumb dumb dumb! I'm unsure if there have been studies done comparing the risk of contracting HIV when using condoms in both circumcised and intact men, but I cannot imagine there would be a discernible difference.

The cancer thing is so silly. Less than 1 percent of men get penile cancer in the US. They can't even study the rates of circ vs. non circ because the rates are so low and the majority of cases a year (1200) are in circed males.

It should not be used as a basis to circ a baby (seeing as the child could later choose to circ on his own anyways). And general cleanliness and safe sex practices in both intact and circed males reduces risk by almost 100 percent.